Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to delineate the boundaries of discrimination under Article 14. Notably:

• R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2007] 1 AC 484): Addressed whether the classification of prisoners based on sentence length constituted "other status" under Article 14. The House of Lords initially held that it did not, but the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) later disagreed, suggesting that certain sentencing regimes could confer a protected status.
• Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1976) 1 EHRR 711: Established that discrimination must be based on a personal characteristic or "other status" to fall under Article 14.
• Gerger v Turkey (1999) ECHR 46: Demonstrated that distinctions based on the gravity of offenses do not fall within prohibited grounds of discrimination.
• Biao v Denmark (2017) 64 EHRR 1, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v Russia (2017) 65 EHRR 6, and Minter v United Kingdom (2017) 65 EHRR SE6: Reinforced the ECtHR's expansive interpretation of "other status" and clarified its application in various contexts.

The Supreme Court assessed these precedents to determine whether the EDS provisions inherently discriminate based on a protected status and whether such discrimination is justified.

Legal Reasoning

The Court undertook a multi-faceted analysis centered on Articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR:

• Article 5: Concerned the right to liberty and security. The EDS framework falls within lawful detention post-conviction, as outlined in Article 5(1)(a).
• Article 14: Prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of ECHR rights. The analysis followed four key elements:
  • Determining if the circumstances fall within the ambit of a Convention right.
  • Establishing if the differential treatment is based on a protected "status."
  • Assessing whether the claimant and the comparators are in analogous situations.
  • Evaluating if the discrimination lacks objective justification.

The Court concluded that Mr. Stott's differential treatment under an EDS was indeed based on a protected "status" as a prisoner serving an extended determinate sentence. Further, the Court found that the stringent early release provisions were objectively justified given the serious nature of Mr. Stott's offenses and the associated public risk.

Impact

This landmark decision upholds the integrity of the EDS framework within the UK's criminal justice system. By affirming that EDS provisions do not contravene the ECHR, the judgment provides legal certainty and reinforces the government's authority to administer extended sentences for particularly serious offenders. It also sets a precedent for how early release provisions are evaluated under human rights scrutiny, balancing individual rights against public protection imperatives.

Article 5 of the ECHR

Article 5 safeguards the right to liberty and security, outlining who can be lawfully deprived of liberty. In this case, Mr. Stott's detention under an EDS is lawful as it stems from a conviction by a competent court for serious offenses.

Article 14 of the ECHR

Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. Discrimination must be based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, or "other status." The Court assesses whether differential treatment is justified by legitimate aims like public protection.

Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS)

An EDS is a custodial sentence extended by a specified period under a licence. It targets offenders deemed a significant risk to the public, ensuring they serve a substantial portion of their sentence before eligibility for parole.

Definition of "Other Status"

"Other status" refers to personal characteristics that distinguish individuals or groups, extending beyond innate traits like race or sex. It includes acquired statuses, such as specific sentencing classifications like EDS.